A memo to federal firearms licensees from the assistant director
of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
is lucid in its belief medical marijuana patients are prohibited
from having guns,
according to a recent article in USA Today.

The memo states, “any person who uses or is addicted to
marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed
legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an
unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is
prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or
ammunition.”

I’m interested to hear from folks on the Kitsap peninsula
regarding this topic. Should having a medical marijuana
authorization prohibit someone from having guns?

28 thoughts on “Should medical marijuana patients be allowed to have guns?”

Ok gun nut’s I think I’m with you on this one. If a person is using a legal medication the government should not be allowed to take away their 2nd amendment rights. Besides, a drunk with a gun is more dangerous that a pot head. This also seems like another infringement on 10th amendment “States rights”.

Kinda conflicted on this one, just as it appears everyone is.I can not and will not use marijuana (employment requires UA), but I have seen folks that MM helps. Should they be prohibited from owning firearms? No. If you isolate one group of people like this, then why not separate the chronic drunks, or tobacco users from their right to own firearms?
IMHO The ATF is wrong here.

What does Washington Law say about this? It would see that our laws would cover a medical marijunana user having/using/owing a firearm as long as that person is not prohibited form ownership/possession in the first place, such as the MJ user is a convicted felon, is under investigation for child/spouse abuse, etc.But if the person has a clean record and just happens to own guns and is a legal medical marijuana user at the same time, what the hey? Heshe is good to go.

I see absolutely NO reason why a person who uses MMJ should not be allowed to own a gun. We have a RIGHT to bear arms. I’d rather that an MMJ patient be armed than a person who uses alcohol as he/she would be much less likely to be violent. Alcohol abuse makes rational thinking go right out the window.

Its unreasonable to allow folks who use mind altering substances to be allowed to own and carry a gun…just as it is unreasonable to allow a drunk to drive. They are not responsible for their actions…their mind is altered, their judgment is ‘off’.

Sharon Ohara
opinions like yours on this issue are exactly why this country is no longer free. just ask a holocaust survivor or a ww2 vet or any other vet who risked their life if taking away our rights improves our freedoms. please do not have children.

The problem with Sharon’s attitude is this, who get’s to decide what is a disqualifying “mind altering substance”. I smoked marijuana when I was a teenager and I can attest to the fact that Alcohol has a more severe effect on your cognitive ability than marijuana does and yet folks can go guzzle liquor all day long and carry a concealed weapon.

So who gets to be the person who decides which substances are OK and which are not? Sharon? And what about folks who take pain killers or mood altering drugs? What about older folks with dementia, should we take away their rights to own guns? Maybe Charleton Heston is too old to own guns and we’ll have to send Sharon over to ‘pry them from his cold dead hands’.

Maybe we should ask… “Should marijuana use disqualify someone from being President of the United States? Considering our last three presidents all admitted to smoking pot.

No one, Robin, should be carrying a gun who is mentally impaired…in my view. Your viewpoint is clearly any demented person should carry weapons…okay with me if you limit their neighborhood to yours – not mine.

Sharon, if you read my other posts then you know I think that few people should be carrying guns. But I don’t deign to set my self up as the judge of who should or should not be allowed. The fact is that we have a 2nd amendment to our constitution. It says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For the record I don’t see in there where it excludes even felons.

Frankly Sharon I sometimes wonder about your mental stability. Would you be willing to let me decide that you were not mentally competent enough to own a gun? If the answer is no, then what makes you think that you have the right to decide for someone else?

Robin I think the world is about to come unglued, I agree with you! The Constitution states clearly that All Citizens have an uninfringable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Working from that bedrock the clear answer to the basic question is yes, users of “medical” Mary Jane may posess and carry firearms. These folks, like anyone else, are liable for the misuse of those arms, and I believe that they, just as drunk drivers, should face enhanced penalties if they are voluntarily intoxicated. “I was drunk/stoned” should be an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor.

Well now, I have a glimmer where you’re going with this.
Why are illegal drugs, illegal?
Why a need to classify medical marijuana separate from the ‘regular’ use of the drug to get ‘high’?
I thought ‘drugs’ including alcohol impeded the brain in some manner to hinder a person’s logical thinking process.
If that is not the case, what is the classification or ‘rules’ to acquire a concealed weapons permit?
Apparently none of the criteria hinges on a non-drugged mind.

If the” Constitution states clearly that All Citizens have an uninfringable Right to Keep and Bear Arms” – why would a concealed weapons permit be required by any state?
How can any state or county then prohibit where a citizen might carry including taking a gun into a classroom or on a school grounds?

If substance use doesn’t matter to the act of owning and carrying a gun – then none of it does and I am totally mistaken in my stand that it did matter.

Uninfringeable is just that Sharon. The Second Amendment, reinforced by the Tenth specifically denies the State or Federal Government the power to restrict the Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms. So to bring it home: NO permits required. NO Government permission required to purchase or own. NO “gun free” anywhere zones. NO Federal/State registries. All of these are Infringements and thus ALL are Unconstitutional.

Ownership and carry are unrelated to use. Criminal misuse is still punishable under the Constitution and use of a firearm while intoxicated is criminal misuse.

Oh and for the record Sharon, “medical” Marajuna use is at least sorta legal, recreational use still falls under criminal misuse. I don’t nessesarily buy into the whole “medical” thing, but for the purpose of this particular conversation there IS a difference between the two.

Mike, it should be noted however that smoking marijuana is a misdemeanor and would not preclude someone from owning a gun or getting a concealed weapons permit.

I am not, and have never been for restricting peoples constitutional rights. I believe that the responsibility of teaching our young people the proper way to handle guns is the duty of parents and role models in our community.

I am not a lawyer or a judge, the laws of our land have stood the test of constitutional challenges so I have to defer to the decisions of the professionals.

Our forefathers were not allowed to have knives over a certain length back in Europe. When they wrote the 2nd amendment they were thinking of knives and muskets, not assault weapons. Bearing arms doesn’t mean concealing arms. Restricting where you can take a weapon doesn’t infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. You are welcome to keep and bear arms on your own property.

Frankly I think it is unconstitutional that our government should try and tell us what natural plant matter we can ingest or not. “Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”…

Robin, under our system laws are Constutional until challenged, and the USSC has been dodging the issue since the first challenges to the NFA in the 20’s. Only recently have we had a court that would take on the issue. Our forefathers were thinking of “Arms” as modern military weapons (BTW: Assault Weapons don’t exist they’re imaginary). In fact many/most of the colonists in the early part of the war were carrying better weapons than the British Soldier. The point of an armed citizenry, in the eyes of the founders, is to check the power of government. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an absolute, individual right ANY restriction on what, how or where and individual chooses to exercise that right IS an infringement and therefore unconstutional

Hehe, in your opinion. But the fact remains that our laws are our laws as they stand today. As you have heard me say, I support our constitution, but not necessarily your interpretation of it.

Our forefathers used hunting rifles to fight the British, it’s true that the long rifles and gorilla tactics defeated the British who fought in formation using muskets but the British had far superior weaponry available to them.

I personally am conflicted over laws that weaken our constitutional rights, however I don’t want to live in a country where every jack knob has a machine pistol. We already live in one of the most violent industrialized nations on earth. That’s why I talk about personal responsibility. Do the right thing.

funny, the individuals who wrote the constitution some odd 235 years ago lived in a world where the safety blanket you live under sharon ohara did not exist… and could possibly go away sooner or later. what would you do then? whom would you call for help? there was a HUGE REASON WHY THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND HAVE CIVIL LIBERTIES was important enough to place that 2nd on the huge list of ideals called our constitution!!!!! You must make yourself safe! but not at the cost of others. SIMPLE

Funny thing Mike…you apparently missed my post in part:
“…If the” Constitution states clearly that All Citizens have an uninfringable Right to Keep and Bear Arms” – why would a concealed weapons permit be required by any state?
How can any state or county then prohibit where a citizen might carry including taking a gun into a classroom or on a school grounds?

If substance use doesn’t matter to the act of owning and carrying a gun – then none of it does and I am totally mistaken in my stand that it did matter.